Immigration part 2

I meant to make clear in my earlier post that my remarks refer to all illegal aliens, regardless of their country of origin. Illegal immigration has unfortunately become synonomous with ALL immigrants from Mexico. Not all immigrants are from Mexico, and not all of them enter this country illegally.

Immigration

There are moments that remind me of the vital importance of debate in the framing of public policy. The current debate about changes to our immigration policy is one of those moments. To some, the solution seems obvious; to others, the problem is much more complex. Still others, believe that our policy on immigration is working and only requires better enforcement of existing laws. Until recently, without the benefit of hearing all the different viewpoints on the subject, I felt that there was a fairly simple solution. I have long felt that the solution is merely to increase border patrol levels and the deportation of those found to be in this country illegally. I now believe that the problem is more complicated and requires an examination of all other approaches. Even now, I'm working through the pros and cons of the different approaches.
Several ideas have been proposed in this past week. I have enjoyed the debate thus far, agreeing with the merits of some and rejecting others. At times, I have even found myself agreeing with some very unlikley figures, such as U.S. House Rep. Tom Tancredo from Colorado. Tancredo suggests that existing laws are sufficient and that increased enforcement will dramatically improve the situation. A guest worker program allowing foreign citizens to work in America without having to become a citizen and thus enjoying the benefits afforded to citizens has been introduced. The construction of a wall across our entire land border has been suggested. Some hardliners propose new laws to make illegal immigration a felony, punishable by imprisonment. They also wish to penalize anyone who knowingly aids illegal immigrants. Another faction seeks to penalize employers who hire people who lack proper proof of U.S. citizenship. The most extreme advocate making English the official language.
First, it is necessary to identify whether a problem actually exists. If so, what is the problem and how can it be corrected? As I see it, our economy can only absorb a certain number of immigrant workers in any particular field. We can not restrict immigration only to the best and brightest from other nations. The resulting competition for the best jobs would undoubtedly force many talented and skilled workers into lesser jobs. On the contrary, accepting too many unskilled workers can create a proportionate shortage of skilled workers, such as doctors and educators, needed to support the society. Any immigration policy must first be devised to allow a balance of skilled and unskilled workers. With the proper balance, the danger of a "top heavy or "bottom heavy" worker pool is minimized from the standpoint of legal immigrations.
Most problems with immigration policy are unlikely to relate to legal immigration although there certainly could be areas in need of attention. Legal immigration should be concerned with proper document control, counterfeiting, and background checks. The new emphasis on counterterrorism measures plays an important part in screening applicants for American citizenship and loyalty.
Of primary concern is the potential for illegal immigration. Person entering the country illegally pose a problem for everyone. One can certainly assume that anyone crossing the border illegally is willing to violate other laws, creating an undue burdern on law enforcement and victimizing law abiding citizens. Illegal aliens often come to America in search of employment. Employers aware of their precarious status are able to hire them at wages lower than the legal minimum, forcing lawful citizens to compete for jobs on an unfair playing field. On a more humanitarian note, crossing the border illegally is dangerous. Border crossers, in the attempt to elude patrols, must survive harsh conditions and many fail, dying of exhaustion, starvation, and dehydration in the desert. Finally, aliens who become homeless or in need of social services cause a drain on the welfare structure, since to deny services would be grossly immoral and politically unpopular.
One of the possible solutions to the problem is a guest worker program. Foreigners seeking work in America, who would otherwise cross the border illegally, would be allowed to work here within defined guidelines, without requiring proof of citizenship. The most often cited benefit of this program is that guest workers are more willing to accept jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform. Since guest workers would not be citizens, employers would not be required to pay them the federal minimum wage. It would further allow some employers to operate in a more open environment, eliminating the need to "pay under the table", possibly also enabling the wages of foreign workers to be taxed whereas they are not now.
I have a number of problems with the guest worker proposal and I would not even consider it as part of any possible reform. First, its entire premise is based upon the belief that there are jobs that Americans refuse to accept. This is a myth of untold proportions. From the slums of any major city, to many of the indian reservations, there are throngs of people clamoring for honest work, not a handout, just an opportunity to provide for their families. There are American citizens in declining steel and mining towns, who are desperate for work, no matter how small or demanding. The vicious cycle of temporary employment and extended layoffs forces people in textile towns like Martinsville VA to welcome the jobs that allegedly only foreigners would accept. The guest worker program would indeed likely reduce the number of victims of illegal crossings, however, opening the border to legitimate crossing for work would ultimately be exploited and create a larger crisis of immigration. Workers would come here initially to work and once inside would remain to do as they please. In reality, the guest worker program serves only one purpose and that is to relieve employers of their moral obligation to afford protections to workers, which currently only apply to American citizens. The lack of citizenship does not mean that foreign workers are less human or less deserving of the minimal worker protections U.S. law provides.
The construction of a wall, fence, or other barrier across our border has a couple of intended goals. By reinforcing the physical border, it would become much harder for aliens to gain entry. Obviously, the fewer people that are able to breach the border, the fewer will fall victim to the harsh conditions of the desert. It would also make the border easier to manage by requiring fewer patrols and funneling potential crossers to points that can be easily monitored. Most importantly, to effectively combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and other criminal activity, an inpenetrable and secure border is essential.
I don't believe a wall is the answer, although the problems it seeks to solve are important and need to be brought to light. A physical wall with concertina wire and armed guards conjures recollections of Checkpoint Charlie and the infamous Berlin wall. Such a symbol of repression was almost universally despised by Americans. Its dismantlement, upon Reagan's now famous insistence, was lauded by Americans as the symbol of Reagan's victory over Communism. While I credit the Beatles, McDonald's, and Levi more for the fall of communism than Reagan, the perception is what it is. To reconstruct a similar wall here in America should nauseate the proudest American. The appearance of hypocrisy has all too many times been eschewed by the Bush administration, given his utter disregard for Geneva conventions, abuse of power, and reckless penchant for burning bridges, literal and figurative. Hypocrisy, though, is exactly what a border wall would represent.
Ultimately, a physical barrier is unlikely to achieve its intended goals. Illegal immigration has become rather sophisticated and organized. Alien smugglers are very resourceful and have demonstrated a good ability to adapt to changing border patrol strategies with tunnels, vehicles, communications, and intelligence. The wall would be expensive to build and only addresses border crossing over land; it does not address the problem of Carribean immigrants, including Cubans, arriving by boat. In the end, the wall would be expensive to build only to be circumvented by other means.
An alternative to a physical wall is a human wall in the form of a larger presence of border patrol. The idea creates jobs and is more effective than brick, mortar , or barbed wire. Although the analogy makes me a bit uneasy, an enhanced patrol along the border offers our military a real world training environment similar to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. Such training is invaluable for troop readiness and perfecting security techniques, while providing a tangible public service. It would be very expensive, but the cost is justified given the threat of terrorists gaining entry onto American soil, which a mere wall can not prevent. If we are truly at war with terrorism, we must defend our perimeter from the enemy and the way to do that is with troop deployment. I totally support increasing patrols along our borders.
Also on the table are some proposals to imprison those found to have crossed the border illegally, rather than simply to deport them. Some would also like to criminalize anyone who knowingly aids an alien gain entry. The threat of imprisonment as a harsher penalty than deportation is meant to deter attempts to enter the country illegally. It is assumed that the rate of successful border crossings may be attributed to assistance from our side of the border. By penalizing those who aid in alien smuggling, it is estimated that the rate of success would decrease, making the attempt more risky, and deterring the more timid of the potential immigrants.
I personally think that imprisonment of apprehended aliens is rather foolish and needlessly costly. I doubt it will deter anyone and will only increase the burden on taxpayer to house and feed illegal immigrants for their term of imprisonment. On the other hand, I don't see much of a downside to imposing harsh penalties on Americans involved in alien smuggling. Without their help, I do believe many people would reconsider their prospects for a successful crossing.
Another possible solution is to crackdown on employers who hire illegal aliens. As said before, employment is the leading motivation for illegal immigration. If employers stop hiring aliens, it is logical to assume that most aliens will have little reason to come here. I agree with this approach entirely. The number of people seeking to gain entry to America would drop dramatically. The jobs vacated by illegal aliens would be filled by citizens who would pay taxes, whereas aliens have not. Enforcing laws to require employers to hire only U.S. citizens would admittedly be problematic, however, it is worthy of the investment of additional resources, from the federal budget. It will be impossible to penalize very small businesses or individuals who hire aliens for small jobs, but the situation is vastly improved if the larger employers stop hiring them. Penalizing such employers with fines and criminal penalties alone will not solve the immigration problem, however, it is certainly a plan that I support.
There are extreme groups who want to make English the official language. This idea is often mentioned dueing any discussion about immigration, however, the relevance escapes me. Is it supposed to deter people from coming to America? I doubt it. It strikes me as little more than the ethnocentrist ravings of a majority that lacks the understanding of our country's history. America was not founded as a nation that bends its will to the whim of the ever changing majority. To be clear, important questions that need a definitive answer must be decided by majority rule, however, in all else, Americans are left to our own free devises. America is a nation of immigrants, a mixture of many different cultures. Being allowed to preserve our respective heritages is a source of distinction.
I believe I have finally come to a more informed conclusion about how to improve the immigration situation. First, recognize that there is a need for balance between offering legal citizenship to both skilled and unskilled workers. To help minimize the need for some to resort to illegal immigration, we should expand the avenues and opportunities for legal immigration, with priority given toward reuniting families. To combat illegal immigration, larger investments in border patrols are needed. Add to that harsh penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens to reduce the number of people that try to come to this country illegally. Finally, we need to penalize the enablers on this side of the border who knowingly aid in the business of smuggling illegal aliens. This combination of solutions offers us the best opportunity for success in reforming our immigration policy.

Prisons

There are changes I would like to see in our prison system. I'm a strong advocate of civil liberties. I'm a firm believer that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Having just seen "Good Night, and Good Luck" , my belief in the absolute necessity of due process is even more strongly reinforced. Because we afford so many protections before making a pronouncement of guilt, I believe we can be reasonably certain that those facing punishment indeed deserve it. Unfortunately, some innocent people will be wrongfully accused and sentenced. On the other hand, there are guilty who manage to avoid prosecution. The current balance is as afair as possible. Proven new technologies, such as DNA blood analysis or cyber tracking, should be used to the fullest extent to further minimize the number of individuals wrongfully accused.
Correctional facilities should not become breeding grounds for super-criminals. Too often the socialization which occurs within prison walls results in inmates learning better methods of evading law enforcement and perfecting their ill-chosen vocations. Prisons are required to allow all inmates an opportunity for physical recreation. Again, this often leads to prisoners who become physically uncontrollable and more dangerous to law enforcement once they are released. Through legislation or executive order, these two problems should be corrected.
First and foremost, I propose that prisons be organized and constructed in such a way to dramatically minimize the amount of socialization which can occur among the prison population. Inmates should not be barred from human interaction; I'm merely suggesting that this interaction be limited to individuals that portary are more positive image worthy of emulation. This may be prison staff, therapists, and even other inmates judged to have the proper character. Should this change require additional human resources, it is an investment well worth making.
Prisons have gained the reputation, fairly by most accounts , of having amenities like what one would expect at a hotel. Here is where I feel fairness and respect for human dignity should end. Inmates who now enjoy television, movies, or fine meals, should hardly be considered mistreated if these priviledges were revoked. Prison is meant to provide punishment for wrongdoing and rehabilitation, not a respite from the rigors of responsible citizenship. The television should be replaced by education and literature, of carefully screened rehabilitative content. Reading materials should be plentiful and readily available as a means of occupying the minds of the inmates and toward their individulaized plan for self improvement. Meals should be carefully planned and prepared to provide the bare minimum of nutritious sustenance, without frills or culinary embellishment.
Lastly, for the strictly minimum security prisons, some of the restrictions previously discussed may be relaxed in compensation for work. Inmates of minimum security prisons should be allowed to earn wages, to be paid upon their release, for work that benefits society and the prisons where they live. Self sufficient prison farms are an outstanding way of rehabilitating individuals with a realistic chance of becoming responsible citizens. They also reduce operating costs for the prison.

Social Security

I consider Social Security one of the greatest achievements of American government. I take my vote seriously and consider more than just a single issue when I vote. I must admit, that I would vote for a lesser candidate if he or she was the only one in a race that would protect Social Security; it is that important. The notion of privatization has been raised in recent elections and it has inspired me to become more active in politics. I was once content to stand in the shadows, refusing to accept a party label, and voting every year. Now, chiefly as a reult of the threat to Social Security, I feel compelled and drafted into fighting for the principles of the Democratic party.
I supported Gore in the 2000 election. Hindsight is 20/20 and I feel confident that most Americans, an even bigger majority than in 2000, now believe that Gore should have been elected. Countless Floridians, Ohioans, and voters in other closely contested states now regret having cast for their vote for Bush. Consider how different our nation might be. Over two thousand brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would be alive because Gore would not have made the mistake of launching an ill-conceived war. I promise you that Gore's response to Katrina would have been more swift, effective, and done with a great deal more compasssion and urgency. Rather than focusing on Iraq, we would be concentrating more on the threats that are posed by North Korea and Iran. It's even not outside the realm of possibility that 9/11 would not have happened.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but despite all of the good things Gore would have done if he had been elected instead of Bush, none of these were the centerpiece of his campaign. Other than the charges of fraud and corruption that engulfed the election process, Gore's near victory will be remembered for the "lockbox". Gore probably didn't use the best language or frame his plan for Social Security in the best rhetoric. His repeated use of the term "l ockbox" left him open for mockery. However, the plan was sound and would secure the safety net that so many Americans now rely.
As I have said in previous posts, the prevalence of poverty in a civilized democracy like America is inexcusable. Welfare is not the cure for poverty. It is disingenuous to characterize Social Security as welfare. Social Security addresses the danger of poverty for millions of aged, disabled, widows, and orphans. For the most part, however, the program is not funded by the general public. It is funded by the beneficiaries own money. The program solves a part of the poverty problem without an unfair restribution of wealth. It's brilliant. Shouldn't we expect our government to find creative solutions like this to the problems we face?
I'm proud to be a member of a political party that would fight to defend such a valuable and necessary program. Social Security has been around for decades and is a shining symbol of the core beliefs of the Democratic party. We believe in fiscal responsibility and fair and equal opportunity and treatment for all. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I can tell you what is wrong with the alternative. The alternative, should we foolishly explore Bush's privatization proposals, is handouts. By reducing benefits, whether it is for all participants or just those who choose to opt into Bush's plan, more Americans will fall into poverty. Let's not be naive, as the Republicans are, that everyone who choose to invest on their own will be successful. Investing always involves risk. Some get lucky, but sadly, some do not. This precisely is the reason why Social Security exists.Investments failed horribly causing the Great Depression when poverty was at record levels. Those whose investments fail, need help. Government can not, nor should it, simply turn it's back on these people. They will then become a burden on ordinary law abiding taxpayers one way or another. If the govermnment helps them in the form of welfare handouts, the taxpayer pays the bill. If the government provides no assistance, these unfortunate souls will be forced into illegal means for survival, causing a burden to law enforcement and less security for everyone.
I recognize the fact that Social Security is facing challenges is in the coming decades. The number of people from the "baby boom generation", born between 1945 and 1965, will soon outnumber the number of wage earners who are paying into the system. Some changes are in deed needed, however, nothing as dire and dramatic as privatizationis warranted. It may be necessary to change budget priorities and allocate more revenues toward Social Security. At a minimum, we must secure the social security revenues into a fund, or "lockbox", if you will, earmarked only for Social Security. Republicans advocating privatization lose all credibility for their dire forecasts when, at the same time, they pilfer social security revenues for their own pork barrel projects. As unpopular as it may seem, sometimes tax increases are necessary and may be justified to maintain solvency to Social Security. As a last resort, reducing benefits for the less vulnerable in order to to protect the most vulnerable may be needed, but should be avoided.
The choice we face on the issue of Social Security is simple and obvious. Do we choose to set aside a small portion of everyone's income to create a fund that will assist them should their life take an unfortunate turn? Or, should we let everyone have their money now and face the prospect of giving more handouts and higher crime in the future? In my opinion, anyone who chooses the latter is myopic, greedy, and foolish. The fact of the matter is this: most people can not adequately plan for their financial future. Sudden catastrophes such as disability, due to aging or trauma, or the death of an income provider, can happen to anyone, propelling an entire family into a life of poverty instantly. Social Security is not only the most pragmatic approach to the problem, it is the right and just thing to do.

Taxation

No one likes paying taxes. We all recognize that it is a necessary evil. Where we differ is how much money our government requires to meet its obligations. Obviously, taxation is inseparably tied to spending. Our views on government spending and, in turn, taxation are based on our opinion of the basic function of government, as in most policy matters.
I have a broader view of government's role than most. People of most political persuasions agree that matters of national security and defense are justifiable uses of governmental authority and public expenditure. While I believe the military's role should be limited to one of pure defense, I do support investment in advanced technology and weapons systems aimed at minimizing the risk of human casualties. For a successful economy, it is imperative that the government invests in vital infrastructure, in the building of roads and communication networks. Also critical to a successful economy is education. Public schools and universities deserve a great deal of consideration for funding to ensure that America is best equipped to compete in the global economy. Finally, there is absolutely no reason why poverty should exist in a modern civilized democracy. Government has the capacity to eradicate poverty and provide a helping hand up, not a hand out, for our most vulnerable citizens. This includes, healthcare, public housing, Social Security, and some innovative welfare to work programs.
In meeting the priorities that I have set forth, revenues should be raised to a sufficient level to fully fund them, within our own means. I vehemently disagree with the creation of a federal debt. If our spending requirements exceed our revenues, the level of taxes should be reexamined and raised, if necessary. I think if the government exercised better planning and analysis, there would be little need to raise or decrease taxes as often as it currently does. Circumstances change and more taxes are need at some times than others. With proper analysis, anticipation of the worst case scenarios, and maintenance of a fair and reasonable surplus fund to absorb unexpected expenses.
Government does not have carte blanche with spending. The amount of taxes raised should be sufficient to meet its obligations, including a surplus buffer fund, but not a cent more. There are other very vital steps that can be taken to decrease taxes without abandoning funding mandates. Waste, fraud, and abuse is rampant within the government. We have all heard the horror stories of $100 hammers and $5,000 toliet seat. Sadly, these examples are not that extreme, nor are they rare occurrences.
Also, the corrupt practices of "earmarking" and pork barrel spending, perfected by Republicans, are in fact, the major reason why taxes are often perceived to be too high. A costly military invasion of a foreign nation is hardly what I consider fiscal prudence either, but that is a discussion for another day. The Republican party usually campaigns on lowering taxes and cutting spending, when in fact, all they want is to spend more on themselves and their friends at the expense of those who truly need it. If we want true tax reform, we will put an end to Republican corruption, cut wasteful spending, and prosecute fraud to the fullest extent, all while honoring our financial and moral committments.
After cleaning up the mess left behind from the Republican drunken orgy of power, we can begin to look at common sense reforms to the tax system. I would begin by analyzing the legitimate necessary expenditures, given the priorities I have outlined, over the past few decades to determine a fair amount of revenue need to be raised. Every effort should be made to implement a flat tax rate or a very simple graduated rate scale that would be easy to understand. Groups living below the poverty line should be exempt. For the most part, loopholes should be eliminated for individuals and corporations. Loopholes in the tax code have been abused and exploited for far too long. With a fair and uncomplicated tax code, everyone should be required to pay their fair share, lowering the liability for everyone.